I think he actually got a little worried about the pushback regarding the most recent bombing of aid vans. Like, even the most pro Israeli outlets and groups online were saying “wow… that was a huge fuck up…”
Of course, none of them were acknowledging it was likely intentional. But I think in terms of gauging “are the Israeli people cool with us literally starving civilians to death” IDF leadership got a fairly affirmative “no”.
How do we know it was intentional? Although I guess the practical difference between intentional and callously indifferent is not very large in this context. So maybe it doesn’t matter.
Israel internationally bombed a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
Israel internationally adopted rules of engagement so lax that they allowed for 3 accidental bombings on a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
All of the above.
The problem for Israel is that all of those possibilities are war crimes.
Well, what they’re going to claim is that war is hard and this happens to everyone, so it’s not intentional at all. Unfortunately, for people predisposed to believe them, this argument can seem quite reasonable. So that’s why we need to rigorously challenge it using as many lines of evidence as possible.
“All three vehicles were carrying civilians; they were marked as WCK vehicles; and their movements were in full compliance with Israeli authorities, who were aware of their itinerary, route, and humanitarian mission,” WCK said in a statement Thursday.
I’m not sure how it can be accidental if you were told about it in advance.
And even if for a moment, that the person who aimed the guns didn’t know, it was someone’s job to make sure they did. Someone knew.
Someone did but it could still be claimed to be “accidental” if that information didn’t make it to the person performing the attack. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it’s plausible. Though I will say at minimum I doubt they would have done this if they knew how well connected these aid workers were. It would have been politically very foolish.
I think their overall strategy makes it clear that they don’t much care to avoid killing civilians and aid workers that are not well connected. But it’s hard to prove it’s done intentionally.
Why are you trying this hard to pretend there is more than one side to this situation? People have given you the facts and you keep snapping back to this CNN passive-voice “we can’t know for sure”.
I think he actually got a little worried about the pushback regarding the most recent bombing of aid vans. Like, even the most pro Israeli outlets and groups online were saying “wow… that was a huge fuck up…”
Of course, none of them were acknowledging it was likely intentional. But I think in terms of gauging “are the Israeli people cool with us literally starving civilians to death” IDF leadership got a fairly affirmative “no”.
How do we know it was intentional? Although I guess the practical difference between intentional and callously indifferent is not very large in this context. So maybe it doesn’t matter.
There are 3 possibilities:
Israel internationally bombed a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
Israel internationally adopted rules of engagement so lax that they allowed for 3 accidental bombings on a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
All of the above.
The problem for Israel is that all of those possibilities are war crimes.
Well, what they’re going to claim is that war is hard and this happens to everyone, so it’s not intentional at all. Unfortunately, for people predisposed to believe them, this argument can seem quite reasonable. So that’s why we need to rigorously challenge it using as many lines of evidence as possible.
They were specifically told the itinerary of the aid workers.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/world-central-kitchen-jacob-flickinger-partner/story?id=108866378
I’m not sure how it can be accidental if you were told about it in advance.
And even if for a moment, that the person who aimed the guns didn’t know, it was someone’s job to make sure they did. Someone knew.
Someone did but it could still be claimed to be “accidental” if that information didn’t make it to the person performing the attack. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it’s plausible. Though I will say at minimum I doubt they would have done this if they knew how well connected these aid workers were. It would have been politically very foolish.
I think their overall strategy makes it clear that they don’t much care to avoid killing civilians and aid workers that are not well connected. But it’s hard to prove it’s done intentionally.
Why are you trying this hard to pretend there is more than one side to this situation? People have given you the facts and you keep snapping back to this CNN passive-voice “we can’t know for sure”.